09-0416-pr

Be njamin v. Comm . of Corr. De pt. 1 U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS 2 F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT 3 4 SUM M AR Y O RD ER 5 6 RULINGS BY SUMM ARY O RDER DO NOT H AVE PRECEDENTIAL EF F ECT. CITATION TO 7 A SU MMAR

Y ORDE R FILED ON OR A FTER JA NU AR Y 1, 20 07, IS PERMITT ED A ND IS 8 G OV E RN E D BY FE D E R A L RU L E OF A PPE L L A T E PR OC E D URE 32 .1 A N D T HIS C OU R T ’S 9 LOCAL RULE 32.1.1 . WHEN CITI NG A SUMM ARY O RDER IN A DOCUM ENT FI LED WITH 10 THI S COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITH ER THE F EDERAL A P P ENDIX OR AN 11 ELECTRONI C DATABASE (W ITH THE NOTATI ON “S U MMAR Y OR D E R ”) . A

PARTY CITING 12 AS U MMA R

Y OR D E R MU S T S E R

V E A C OPY OF IT ON A N Y PA R T Y N OT RE PRE S E N T E D BY 13 COUNSEL. 14 15 At a stated te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the 16 Daniel Patric k Moy nihan Courthouse, 500 Pear l Street, in the City of Ne w York, on the 29 th 17 day

of April, two thousand ten. 18 19 Pr e se nt: 2 0 P IE RR E N

. LE V A L, 21 ROBERT A. K ATZ MANN, 22 B ARRI NG TO N D . PA RKER, 23 Circuit Judges

. 24 25

________________________________________________ 26 27 David B enjamin, 28 29 Plaintif f-Appellant , 30 31 32 v. 09-0416-pr 33 34 Commis sio ne r o f C or re c tio na l D e pa

rtme nt 35 of State, Commissi oner G oord, Corre ctional 36 Offic er Char les O’Conner , DOCS of the 37 State of Ne w York, 38 39 Defendants-A ppellees

. 40 41

________________________________________________-2- 1 F or

Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt: D AVI D B E N JA M IN , pro s e , Stormvil le, NY. 2 3 For

Appellee : ANDREW M. C UO MO , Attorney Gene ral of the State of Ne w 4 Yo rk ; B AR B AR A D. U NDE R WO OD , So lic ito r G e ne ra l; M I CHAEL 5 B EL OHLAVEK , Se nio r C ouns e l; D AVI D LAWRENC E I I I , Assistant 6 Solicitor Genera l, New Yor k, NY. 7

________________________________________________ 8 9 Appea l from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ne w York 10 (B uchwa ld, J

.). 11 12 ON CO NSI DE RA TIO N W HEREOF , i ti s h e r e b y OR DE RE D , AD JU DG ED , and 13 DE CREED that th e matte r i s REMAND ED t o th e d i s tri ctco urtfo r f urt h er p ro ce ed i n gs 14 consistent with this order. 15 Appellant David Be njamin, a prisoner servinga Ne w York State se ntence , appea ls the 16 Dec ember

29, 2008, order

of the district cour

t dismi ssing his cla im of excessive forc e by 17 corr ectional of

fice rs by rea son of his failure to exhaust available administrative re medies. 18 B e nja

min pr inc ipa lly

c onte nd s th at O ff

ic e r O ’C onne r’ s thre at, “ Iwi ll k ill you if you c omp la in 19 about me” ( Be njamin Dep. 88), on the day of the a lleg ed assa

ult ex cuses his fa ilure to file an 20 administrative g rieva nce a nd estops O’Conner

from ra ising the de fense of fa ilure to exhaust. See 21 He mp hil l v . Ne w York, 380 F.3d 680, 688- 89 (2d Cir. 2004). We pre sume familiarity with the 22 fa c ts a

nd the re c or d o f p ri or

pr oc e e din g s. 23 In J anuar y 2005, we va cate d the district court’s initial dismissal of Benjamin’s complaint 24 and

re mand e d to the dis tr ic t c ourt wi th i ns tr

uc tio ns that it

a dd re ss t he fo llo wi ngqu e sti on s: 25 [T] he district cour t must determine whethe r Appe llant’s alleg ations ag ainst the 26 Appellee s in his dis ciplinary proce eding s suffice d to put the Appellees on notice 27 and provide them an opportunity to addre ss the complaints internally , there by 28 rende ringhis claims exhausted. See J ohnson v. Testman , 380 F.3d 691 ( 2d Cir. 29 2004). I f the c ourt does not conc lude that [A] ppellant’s cla ims were the reby-3- 1 exhausted, the district court must also deter mine, in light of this Court’s decisions 2 in He mp hil l v . Ne w York, 380 F.3d 680 ( 2d Cir. 2004), and Gi an o v . G oo rd, 380 3 F .3 d 6 70 (2 d Ci r. 20 04 ): (1 ) whe the r A pp e lla nt’ s f e ar o f r e ta liatio n b a se d o n h is 4 previous experienc e with pursuingan administrative grieva nce r ender ed the 5 administrative proc edure s unavailable ; (2) if the a dminist rative pr ocedur es we re 6 ava ila

ble , whe the r t

he Ap pe lle e s w e re e sto pp e d f ro m a sse rt ingfa ilure to e xha us t 7 as a de fense ; and (3) if administrative re medies we re a vailable a nd one or both of 8 the Appellee s were not estopped fr om assertingfailure to exhaust as a defe nse, 9 wh e the r A pp e lla nt w a s ju sti fi e d in

no t pu rs uin ga g ri e va nc e in a c c or da

nc e wi th 10 the g rieva nce pr ocedur es set for

th by the New York State De partment of 11 Cor

re c tio na l Se rv ic e s. 12 Be nja mi n v . G oo rd, No. 02-0211-pr (2d Cir. J an. 20, 2005) ( order) ( Benjamin I

). 13 In th e or de r h e re a pp e a le d f ro m, t he dis tr ic t c ourt

c or re c tly c on c lud e d th at th e fi rs t 14 question (whethe r B enjamin’s alleg ations in the disciplinary proce edingag ainst him satisfied the 15 e xha

us tio n r e qu ir e me nt) is n o lo ng e r p e rt ine nt b y re a so n o f t

he Sup re me Court ’s de c isi on in 16 W

oodford v. Ngo , 548 U.S. 81 (2006). The district court also g ave c onclusory , neg ative answ ers 17 to the rema ining thre e questions, as to whe ther B enjamin’s pre vious ex perie nce of reta liation for 18 g rieva

nces r ender ed administrative pr ocedur es unava ilable, whethe r Appe llees we re e stopped 19 from asse rtingfailure to exhaust as a defe nse, and whether Be njamin was justified in not filing an 20 administrative g rieva nce. S e eB e n j a m i n v . C

o m m ’ r o f C o rr . D e p ’ t o f S ta t eo f N

. Y. , No. 02 Civ. 21 1703(NRB ), 2008 WL5459863, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. D ec. 30, 2008) ( Benjamin II

I ). 22 So f

ar a s w e c an te ll, ho we ve r, in m akin gthe se fi nd ing s th e dis tr ic t c ourt did no t a dd re ss 23 Be njamin’s rec ent testimony alleg ing O ffice r O’Conne r’s thre at to kill him if he c omplained 24 about O’Conner . Thus, while the district cour t found, “ba sed on the re cord, that plaintiff’s 25 failure to utili ze the formal grieva nce pr ocedur e ca

nnot be justified by

his alleg ed fe ar of 26 reta liation based on pre vious ex perie nce,” id. , this conclusion was base d on Be njamin’s-4- 1 “pre vious ex perie nce w ith pursuing a n administrative grieva

nce,” B e n j a m i n v . C

o m m ’ r N

. Y. 2 Sta teDe

p’ t of Cor r. Se rv s. , No. 02 Civ. 1703(NRB) , 2006 WL783380, at *1 n.5, *3 (S.D.N.Y. 3 Mar. 28, 2006) (

Benjamin II

), and did not take acc ount of O’Conner ’s alleg ed thre at. Also, 4 while the district cour t found that “plaintiff ha s not established that defe ndants wer e estoppe d 5 from asse rtinga fa ilure to exhaust defense based on the ir ac tions,” Benjamin II I , 2 0 0 8 WL 6 5459863, at *1, it did not address O’Conne r’s a lleg ed thre at in rea chingthat conclusion. 7 Assuming the district c ourt consider ed and r ejec ted B enjamin’s cla im that O’Conner’s thre at 8 ex cu s es h i s fa i l ure t o fi l e anadm i n i s tra t i v e gr i ev an ce an d es t o p s O’ C o nn er

fr o mas s ert i n g a 9 defe nse of f

ailure to e x haust, it is not clear whe ther the c ourt did so beca use it discredited 10 Be njamin’s claim that O’Conner threatened him (a lthough it had he ld no evidentiary hearing) , or 11 be c a

us e , e ve n a c c e pti ngB e nja min ’s a lle g atio n a s tr

ue , th e c ourt

fo un d th e thr e at le g a lly 12 insufficient to excuse B enjamin’s fa ilure to file an a dminist rative grieva nce or to estop O’Conner 13 fr om r a isi nga

de fe ns e of

fa ilure to e xha

us t ( in whic h c a se the c ourt g ave no e xplanatio n o f i ts 14 rea sons). 15 We remand pur suant to the proce dure outlined in United States v. J acobson , 15 F.3d 19, 16 22 (2d Cir. 1994), for the district court to addr ess two questions: whether O’Conner ’s alleg ed 17 threat to kill Be njamin if he complaine d either ( 1) excuses B enjamin from the r equire ment of 18 exhausting ava ilable administrative re medies, or ( 2) estops O’Conne r fr om raisinga def ense of 19 failure to exhaust admini strative re medies. I f the district cour t answer s both questions in t he 20 neg ative, it should ex plain whether its decision is based on discre diting B enjamin’s alleg ation, or 21 on

the c on c lus ion

that, a s a le g a l matte r, su c h a

thr e at ne ith e r e xcu se s B e nja min ’s fa ilure to-5- 1 exhaust available a dminist rative r emedies nor estops O’Conner

from ra ising a

defe nse of f

ailure 2 to exhaust. On remand, the c ourt is free to hold an evidentiar y hearing ( which pre sumably may 3 be done by

telephone c onnection to the prison), which it might find desira ble if rulingon 4 c r e d i b i l i ty. 5 T h e m att e r i s h e r e b y RE M AN DE D to the district court for further proce eding s consistent 6 with this order. Withi n ten day s of the district cour t’s filing of

its response to this order, a ny 7 pa rt y to t he pr oc e e din g s ma

y re sto re the c a se to t

his pa ne l by g ivi ngno tic e to t

he Cle rk of thi s 8 Court

. 9 10 FOR THE COURT: 11 CA TH ERI NE O’ HA GA

N WO L F E, CL ERK 12 13